Road Repairs/Road Humps

[jimblob]

please see below a response from Nick Whelan at Stockport Highways, in relation to his thoughts on removal of speed humps. my comments back to him are those shown in blue.

Schemes of traffic calming are generally introduced in response to problems of excess speed by vehicles.  They are usually instigated by residents raising a petition or at the request of local Councillors. Of course they are! What resident isn’t going to want less traffic on their own local road?I’d like less traffic on Stockport Road in Marple as I’m sure would many local residents). They are introduced following consultation (but seemingly only with local residents; WHY? the very people who have asked for the scheme in the first instance, NOT the commuting public who might regularly use the road in question) Chester Road in Hazel Grove a case in point here, a petition by the residents, that the local councillor took to consultation and ultimately implemented, but then lost the original petition and not consulting anyone other than the people who’d asked for it in the first place, hardly democratic! The post scheme consultation also concluding that the road was considered less safe after the scheme was implemented... now there's a result!), democratic approval, legal advertising and consideration of objections.  The removal of a traffic calming scheme requires the same procedure, with consultation, approval, legal advertising and consideration of objections to the removal.  This process is perfectly possible to carry out and costs of scheme removal could indeed be minimised if this were to take place at the same time as a road is re-surfaced.  If there is a particular scheme which someone would like to be considered for removal we would invite them to raise a petition of residents of that street (Why only the residents of the Street?) requesting that we do so.  If we receive such a petition we will approach the local Councillors to see if they wish us to undertake a formal consultation process.  This consultation would need to include consideration of the likely impact on vehicle speeds if a scheme were removed.  It may also need to consider the possible need to revoke any accompanying 20mph speed limit which may not be considered feasible to enforce following removal of the scheme.  Whilst there may be possible benefit from reduced emissions from vehicles no longer speeding up and slowing down the residents of any one street (why are local residents again the only ones considered) may also consider that the removal of the humps could lead to an increase in traffic on their street, so negating the benefits from possible emission reduction from individual vehicles.  (Does Mr Whelan think that people simply look for streets to drive down for fun, that don’t have speed humps, thereby increasing traffic levels? Removing them might simply allow people more options for their morning commute that aren’t hindered by speed humps; it won’t increase the number of cars on the road, it will simply improve the regular flow of traffic within a highly congested and increasingly “humped” network of roads). Whilst we have had requests from individuals about removal of particular traffic calming features (generally the one outside their house), (I thought you said that most schemes were requested BY local residents) we have yet to receive a petition requesting removal of a complete scheme.  (you have now!!! ... Please remove the scheme on Chester Road, it was undemocratically implemented and the road is now considered less safe than before. Please make sure you consult road users as well as local residents when conducting consultation to this request). Please note that in respect of individual features these generally cannot be removed in isolation as this will lead to excessive spacing of features.  Where this has occurred (e.g. to accommodate a new development access) then it has been necessary to replace the feature with one or more new ones to retain an acceptable spacing.

[CTCREP]

Further to the above, the road humps in Compstall are being re-profiled so they are less uncomfortable to drive over.

However it does not remove the fact that the Council should have consulted the residents first to see if traffic calming was really necessary and consulted with other road designers to see if alternative traffic calming measures were more suitable. If you are dissatisfied with how traffic calming is dealt with in Stockport you should contact the Council now before these old ideas are put in place in your area.

[CTCREP]

he Road Humps were introduced after the Council conducted a survey several years ago. Now circumstances and attitudes have changed and alternative methods of traffic calming can be employed where appropriate.

The Council has failed to recognise this situation and have merely continued with old thinking which may be inappropriate today. They have failed to consult the residents and others such as the emergency services before reintroducing the humps.  Those  that are in place in Compstall are far from the sinusoidal profile that was the originally proposed design. and are extremely uncomfortable to drive over at any speed above 3 mph,

It should not be necessary for residents to create a petition to undo the decisions made by our Council Officials, and which is quite likely to be ignored  by the Council claiming they have no money having already wasted it on  unnecessary facilities.

Whether or not you approve of Road Humps unfortunately Traffic Calming is necessary in some places. We don’t need to discuss the pro’s and con’s of road humps, the Council should consult with the residents and offer alternative suggestions. They have the facility to contact all the residents, so please make your opinions known to your Councillors and Council Officials  otherwise soon Stockport will become a no-go area for those who want to use our road system.

[jimblob]

Interesting... I also read the many articles suggesting that humps cause more problems than they solve. I forwarded one to Stockport Highways team and to William Wragg. William did reply, (thank you William), the highways team did not, (no surprises there, Stockport Highways consider themselves above those of us who have to suffer the fruits of their so called "Improvement" schemes).
Interesting also that we need a petition of 51% to remove the humps, I don't recall a petition or consultation that needed 51% of us to want them installed in the first place. Let's start a petition, William, would you be prepared to support this?

Chester Road in Hazel Grove... and the traffic calming measures there... a complete joke, waste of money and something done only to support the ego of the then resident local councillor and a handful of local residents. No consultation, Stockport Highways lost the original petition from the residents who wanted the petition, but essentially it had no support and the post consultation exercise concluded that people considered the road less safe than it was before the measures were put in place.

Surely common sense should prevail. If we want Stockport (and of course Marple) to flourish, we need a road network that encourages the free flow of traffic.

[CTCREP]

Currently the roads in Stockport are being repaired. This means scraping the top surface and in the process removing the Road Humps.   Current thinking is that Road Humps cause more problems than they solve and yet the Council will be replacing them.

I queried this with the Leader of the Council, Cllr Alex Ganotis, and was told the humps would be replaced. The reply went on:-

"For the humps to be removed you would need a petition from 51% of the residents supporting their removal.   If your Ward Councillors  were minded to proceed (as any removal would be funded from the allocated ward budget) the Council would carry out their  own consultation to confirm this is what the residents want.   If the removal of the humps is supported and the Councillors were happy to fund this, it is then legally advertised, after which period, they can be removed.  This process usually takes between 9 to 12 months.

Apart from the fact that the Council is probably spending our money unnecessarily by replacing the road humps, the Council Leader appears to require me to do his job of canvassing the local residents and then try to persuade the Council to find more money to remove them.

If you think replacing unnecessary road humps is detrimental to our district as well as wasting Tax Payers money then I ask you to contact the Council before it is too late.